W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > January 2002

Re: Resolving the Ed Note in Part 1 section 5.1 (was New Issues)

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 14:19:51 +0100
Message-ID: <3C56A177.1A87C0FE@crf.canon.fr>
To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
CC: dug@us.ibm.com, "'Henrik Frystyk Nielsen'" <henrikn@microsoft.com>, skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com, xml-dist-app <xml-dist-app@w3c.org>
Presumably, one could use nested SOAP envelopes to get around the problem of
not being able to apply the SOAP extensibility framework. In this model, the
initial envelope would be wrapped into a second envelope that would be
delivered to the next hop. The second envelope would contain binding specific
information, represented as headers (bodies?). :)


noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:

> You raise a good point.  In this proposal, the binding is indeed viewed as
> separate in the sense that the processing rules of chapter 2 apply >after<
> a binding has done the job of receiving an infoset, and at an intermediary
> >before< the relayed infoset is sent by the binding.  So, in that sense
> separate.
> The proposal I made is intended as a compromise.   By imposing the
> separation, we get out of the business of figuring out how to integrate
> the two.  For example, we don't have to say how a binding can munge with
> the envelope when in fact the processing rules say that >all< mU checking
> must be done before any processing is done.  What we lose is the ability
> to apply the soap extensibility and processing model to bindings.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
> IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2002 08:22:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:11:45 UTC